I had a conversation a few days ago on the nature of how we ought to structure society. It was driven by a podcast over the correlation between beliefs about meritocracy and willingness to redistribute wealth. The two models considered were loosely called European and American. The European more generally considers luck to be larger factor than hard work in outcomes, whereas the American model considers hard work to be the bigger factor.  

Perhaps because I AM American, I agree more with the American model. I grant that hard work isn’t the only factor in outcomes. People can work hard and never get ahead, and luck can of course play a large role in accruing wealth.

But to my mind, it still reduces down to a basic approach. The European mindset will almost inevitably lead to a nihilistic approach. After all, if your outcome in life is mostly due to luck, or factors beyond your control, then what is the point of trying.

I think that is obviously wrong. Of course, working hard will help you and you will end up better than if you didn’t. I’m not under the illusion that simply working hard will lead to wealth. But it will lead to a better outcome than if you didn’t. To my surprise, my counterpart disagreed. He said he thought it really didn’t matter.

This of course led to the basic question of mindset- the mentality you approach life with. I think if you don’t bother trying, why should you receive anything? Why would you be rewarded for doing nothing?

The questions I was confronted with was: Why would I want a society where people are left out?

For me, it boils down to respect for individuals. I’ll put it this way. I don’t want a society where anyone is excluded. Nor do I want a society where if one does change, he doesn’t have a way to get back ahead. That is because I believe in the personal rights and responsibilities of the individual. If you work hard, you deserve to enjoy the fruits of your labor. If you do nothing, you deserve to enjoy the fruits of that labor too- which is to say nothing.

The natural consequence of doing nothing is not having your needs met. Do nothing = get nothing =  have nothing. We all need basic necessities like food and shelter to live. Doing nothing means you don’t get those things, and if you want them, you’ll be forced to do something rather than nothing.  

Why do I want a society where people could be left out? Because that society is one that allows for natural consequences of individual actions. I want a society where the natural incentives to work are left to operate.

On the flip side, if individuals that don’t do anything are rewarded with a living, because the government takes the money from those that actually earn it, then individuals that do nothing are incentivized to continue not doing anything. This unfairly rewards those that do nothing, and unfairly penalizes that who work.  

All this seems so obvious to me, that I was caught off guard by someone who not only knows this, but for some reason, disagrees.

I’m aware of all kinds of issues that exist about whether or not meritocracy really exists. I’m also aware that there are kinds of cases that would qualify as exceptions to my general rule, such as people that can’t physically work. But I still stand by the general rule as to why I would want a society where consequences of actions are still in play.

Now I KNOW the other person believes in consequences, since I know he would want the rich oppressors to have consequences for their actions. Why then should there be consequences for one group, but not for another? This dichotomy infantilizes one group, as if to say: they can’t help themselves. They need to be coddled and taken care of, because they aren’t up to making basic choices. That mindset is an insult to those individuals. But if you establish incentives, and those people simply take advantage of the incentives, you’ve already proven they are capable of making rational choices.

Which means one class of people from the consequences of their decisions is both incoherent and inconsistent.